you're reading...
Pre-2008 Posts

Running for President While Female — 3

go2war_9x3_bmprstckr.jpg

4629151_2301608.jpg1491734_1363798.jpg149027854v20_240x240_front.jpg

hellary_no_home2.jpgangry_wmn_w_nukes_001.jpg

111507968v5_150x150_front.jpg182024806v5_150x150_front.jpg

wmn_run_homes_001.jpg

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Discussion

44 thoughts on “Running for President While Female — 3

  1. Clearly most of these are sexist, but I don’t see how the one with Uncle Sam urinating on Hillary’s name has anything to do with her being a woman.

    Posted by Nkweli | February 5, 2008, 8:34 pm
  2. It seems that the misogynists are very, very afraid that a female may get elected C&C. They are doing everything they can to sabotage HRC.

    All the above proves is that misogyny is so accepted, a tactic of war (against females). Do they have the racial equivalent against Obama? Any oh-so-amusing slave ‘humour’?

    Posted by stormy | February 5, 2008, 8:36 pm
  3. Pure misogyny. All the (presumably male) people who produce this stuff are proving is how incredibly terrified they are of women.

    Posted by Debs | February 5, 2008, 8:39 pm
  4. Women, does anyone feel up to telling Nkweli why Uncle Sam urinating on Hillary Clinton’s name might be a sexist, misogynist, woman-hating depiction?

    Stormy, I think everyone should do a google search on “anti-Obama t-shirts” and “anti-Obama gear,” so they can see for themselves.

    I did this search and found no slave humor, nothing redolent of white racism against black persons as it has historically existed in the United States, no minstrelsy, no blackface, no watermelons or fried chicken, no nooses, burning crosses, (heaven forbid), etc.

    I did find shirts and gear depicting Obama as a terrorist, i.e., “Osama Obama,” t-shirts showing him with a turban and beard, etc. Which is interesting. I’m still processing that.

    Posted by womensspace | February 5, 2008, 8:42 pm
  5. To me the most horrifying image up there is the witch burning, just on so many levels.

    Posted by womensspace | February 5, 2008, 8:54 pm
  6. Heart,

    I was surprised at the comment. Of course it is misogynist. To me it reminds me of what men do to women in porn but I am open to other interpretations.

    Posted by kiuku | February 5, 2008, 9:33 pm
  7. There are many folks out there who believe that Obama is a Muslim. I would imagine that is the reference in the Osama Obama shirt.

    Posted by susan s. | February 5, 2008, 9:35 pm
  8. Yes Heart, the Witch Burning, they just can’t let go of this one. Do they realise the Burning Times was a holocaust? – Of course they do, but it’s okay because the vast majority of ‘witch’ accusations were female (90 percent in Europe)

    Posted by sparklematrix | February 5, 2008, 9:35 pm
  9. They never really stopped….burning the witches, that is.

    Appalling. What did I do to deserve having to live in the same world as these freaks?

    Posted by Branjor | February 5, 2008, 9:39 pm
  10. Do men piss on other men, or do men piss in urinals and piss on women in pornography? Nkweli knows damn well that cartoon is misogynistic, he just wants to feel the pain it may have caused some woman here so he can relive it while he masturbates. Fuck off Nkweli, you loser. Go piss on your daddy and ask him if he likes it.

    Posted by ekittyglendower | February 5, 2008, 10:47 pm
  11. ekittyglendower, nice and concise. Ha. Bitter Ha.

    For examples of the way men (and boys) piss on women and make pornography out of it, click here.

    Interesting, though, the idea of the U.S. as male, the pissee as a woman, in this instance a prominent U.S. senator who is female. That’s a theme that has been repeated internationally over centuries by now, the U.S. making women out of female persons, whole communities, entire races, ethnicities, entire nations via the abuse which pissing on people signifies. This is how women are made. This is what gender is all about.

    Posted by womensspace | February 5, 2008, 11:06 pm
  12. Twisty got it right – they hate us.

    Posted by witchy-woo | February 6, 2008, 1:22 am
  13. Fuck men! Their time is up.

    Posted by kiuku | February 6, 2008, 3:01 am
  14. It’s so disgusting I could barely get myself to read them.

    I decided today that there is not a man on the planet that doesn’t hate women in some capacity, as much as people don’t like thinking of the “good” men in their families that way–myself included. They all have absorbed misogyny to some extent. How Clinton is treated is one thing, and then, sadly, there is my every day life. Today I casted my primary vote, and the guy who had to set up the voting booth before I entered was the microcosm of what’s wrong with sexism in American politics. I handed off a blank piece of paper and waited for him to put the ballot in somewhere in the back of the machine and some other such stuff (I couldn’t see where he went), and when I saw him again, I put one foot into the booth, pointing towards it with one eyebrow raised and said, “OK?” as in obviously indicating, “it’s all set for me to go in now?” and he said, “OH no, YOU HAVE TO GO IN AND VOTE NOW, I DIDN’T JUST VOTE FOR YOU! Because I DON’T KNOW WHO YOU ARE VOTING FOR! DO YOu understand? YOU HAVE TO GO IN AND VOTE NOW. I CAN’T VOTE FOR YOU! Only YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE VOTING FOR” in an extremely condescending manner! He barely came short of patting me on the head! (!!!!!) I won’t even get started about the polls being located inside a church, the home of exalted misogyny, though in hindsight, it’s pretty fitting.

    Female/male is a dichotomy in men’s minds, but it also exists on a spectrum by which the more “feminine” you look, the more they assume you are mentally retarded. (Any woman knows this, and any man should know this who is paying attention to Clinton’s coverage.) I want to wear my IQ on my shirt from now on at all times, since that’s where they’re looking anyway, and because when they look at my tits they apparently imagine my brain mass is what drifted down to fill my chest. This is exactly what I was so mad about on the trans thread from a few days ago. They just DO. NOT. GET. what life is like as a woman, what every SINGLE INTERACTION of every moment in my day is like, how it serves to remind me that I am not actually human, how it’s my place to be despised and insulted and used and belittled and dismissed and disrespected, which is worse than being regarded as nothing at all, ignored. Men can never understand how little comments and vocal inflections and dismissiveness could create that cascade of reactions that have more weight than the words seem to hold. They would assume the response wasn’t necessarily because I’m a woman (akin to when they dismiss blacks for always “playing the race card”), but how can I explain the nuances of the tones they take with me, the way they talk to me by automatically presuming they’re smarter, supreme, superior? Men will never get it, all we can do is hope for a society where they can’t get away with it, nothing more.

    Love,
    Glass Half Empty, Blood Pressure Rising, Embroidering My IQ into All My T-Shirts, And Embedding A Switch-Blade Into My Belt Buckle, Thread-Fuser in NJ

    Posted by K.A. | February 6, 2008, 5:20 am
  15. Fuck men! Their time is up.

    That’s just the problem for me, kiuku. I still want to fuck men. I just don’t want to need a year of therapy after every encounter. What to do, what to do…(who to do, who to do?).

    Posted by K.A. | February 6, 2008, 5:24 am
  16. K.A. — Men rarely use a belittling tone of voice with me ever. There have been times when I have beated the brains out of men, there have been other times when I’ve been armed with a baseball bat, and there have been times when I’ve had a boiling hot cup of coffee in my hand, and they’ve backed down pretty damn fast. Men will not take women seriously ever until they feel they will die if they don’t or suffer severe punishment. They won’t listen, they don’t care, but they will not mess with women who can do serious physical harm to them. That is the one and only thing men understand.

    When will women get that they are dealing with monsters and animals and pigs? You are not dealing with rational human beings, you are dealing with fading Y chromasomes, nothing more and nothing less.

    How many hundreds of years of humiliation in the future are women going to put up with? Really, this election should clue you all in to who and what you are dealing with. Yes, freedom comes with a strong arm, and a steel mind. It is not for the weak or the placating. I’m done with civility and men, I’m at war with these enemies, and I am disgusted with women who continue to think they are worth bargaining with anymore!

    Posted by Satsuma | February 6, 2008, 8:34 am
  17. Awesome, K.A.!

    Posted by ceejay1968 | February 6, 2008, 11:42 am
  18. Excuses denials justification, biological lies, evolutionary lies – you name it I’ve heard it all from the mouths of those men who believe just because fortune gave them male organs and a white skin this automatically makes them superior to other humans of whatever race, ethnicity, class etc. Read A Deafening Silence by Patrizia Romito which has just been published to see how male denial, excuses and justification for men’s utter hated of women operates.

    Irrespective of whether or not a man has more power than another man he can always use his own personal ‘male privilege’ and enact his hatred and fear of women by mundane everyday acts of sexual, verbal and physical harassment of women. What is it all about? Men’s fear they will lose power and men’s fear and hatred of women because women like men are human and women like men are individuals. Men say they don’t get it – another lie because another never-ending lie is the one which claims men are rational and women are irrational. Need I say any more.

    Misogyny your name is man!

    Posted by jennifer drew | February 6, 2008, 12:26 pm
  19. ***Men will not take women seriously ever until they feel they will die if they don’t or suffer severe punishment. They won’t listen, they don’t care, but they will not mess with women who can do serious physical harm to them. That is the one and only thing men understand.***

    This is something that took a long time to get through my skull but I have had some experiences which have consistently, over time, confirmed it to be true. Women don’t like to think it’s true because men are on average stronger and because women usually don’t like to be violent or even to appear as if they might be violent. It seems too dangerous. It’s scary, I know, but unfortunately it is true. Yea, Satsuma!

    ***Misogyny your name is man!***

    Jennifer Drew, how true! Misogyny’s name is not animals, it is not pigs, it is MAN.

    Posted by Branjor | February 6, 2008, 3:03 pm
  20. Just another high 5 to Satsuma.
    🙂

    Mary

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | February 6, 2008, 3:44 pm
  21. “Men will not take women seriously ever until they feel they will die if they don’t or suffer severe punishment. They won’t listen, they don’t care, but they will not mess with women who can do serious physical harm to them. That is the one and only thing men understand.”

    VERY true.

    ask my husband how he felt as his *strength* did nothing for him while i was kicking in a metal security screen door with my bare feet. his face was priceless. i could have been one of those women on teevee mystifying the media as to how i could have beat my own husband to death. he was trying to keep my child from me, that’s how.

    Posted by avril joy | February 6, 2008, 7:37 pm
  22. When will women get that they are dealing with monsters and animals and pigs? You are not dealing with rational human beings, you are dealing with fading Y chromasomes, nothing more and nothing less.

    How many hundreds of years of humiliation in the future are women going to put up with? Really, this election should clue you all in to who and what you are dealing with. Yes, freedom comes with a strong arm, and a steel mind. It is not for the weak or the placating. I’m done with civility and men, I’m at war with these enemies, and I am disgusted with women who continue to think they are worth bargaining with anymore!

    Ha ha, I’ve referred to it as the “vestigial y gene” myself before too! It’s archaic and evolution needs to take care of it, though I’d be happy to catalyze the process. I thought “militant feminist” was an anti-feminist slur, but I guess there are real self-identified militants. It’s war on women, so violent retribution to end the war is perfectly justified. I am not a pacifist. I hereby declare myself a militant radical feminist. I think every time another woman is beaten, raped, tortured, killed, humiliated, we should take another man. This isn’t eye for an eye so much as effective war tactics.

    Posted by K.A. | February 6, 2008, 8:26 pm
  23. I think a lot of feminism is about a state of mind–what you believe. I’m glad so many women on this site have the guts to break through their own denial. Denial is big with women, and perhaps big with all human beings.

    So to truly see what is actually happening day in and day out takes a lot of power — the power to speak “feeling creepy” into truth.

    A lot of times it is very hard to put your finger on what is strange or making you feel uncomfortable.

    You can notice this a lot with radio. A person will call in a shock jock radio show, the host will make fun of the person’s accent or question, but the caller will just go on with whatever question he or she has asked without acknowleging the insult.
    Are they pretending they haven’t been insulted, and so they just quickly move uncomfortably to their question? Or does the insult really go over their heads?

    Same thing with women in a very sexist world. Are women really hearing the constant insults men direct at them, or are they pretending that they actually like this “attention”?

    How aware are people most of the time?

    Do men insult each other and become so accustomed to this that they do it to women too? I know men use ritual insults all the time in the public sphere, something I would rarely do.

    This is why there is so much violence in the world — men just use it to defuse the profound insults. The honor killings, the tit for tat PLO vs. Israeli male conflict, the I’m going to the moon before you nah nah nah…

    Awareness and perception are keys to identifying the patterns of patriarchy, the very tools and tactics of its operation.

    A mistake many women make is to assume men mean women no harm most of the time. I can see the awful atmospheres men create all the time, even when they are not consciously “trying to.”

    So when you see those images of Hillary Clinton above, you see what men do to women, even powerful women. It’s a pretty clear message to me.

    The key is, for women to face the hatred and see it for what it is, pathological, evil, even the original sins of men let loose upon the world. To turn fundamentalist christianity on its head, you can say that male hatred of women is an original sin, it is god’s punishment on men, and our redemption is women’s feminist consciousness.

    We can look at feminist consciousness among women as an act of holiness, a connection with the profound power of women or the goddess or the goddess within women. I like this creative thealogy, because creating theology is what men have done for thousands of years. Women need to be creating a system of laws, an awakened belief to be able to confront the incredible evil represented by those pictures of Hillary Clinton — Hillary Clinton who is walking through fire and hatred to redeam the honor of the intelligent woman.

    It is a profound act of courage that she might not be fully aware of yet.

    Posted by Satsuma | February 6, 2008, 8:49 pm
  24. Those are awful😦

    Posted by hexy | February 7, 2008, 8:32 am
  25. I don’t think men insult eachother very much, and definitely not in the same way they insult women. Men’s insults is about making men, and making respectable people. Men’s insults to women is about subordination, and dehumanizaiton, and degradation. Men do degrade subordinate men, but it is always the worst for women.

    Posted by kiuku | February 7, 2008, 7:26 pm
  26. “Ha ha, I’ve referred to it as the “vestigial y gene” myself before too! It’s archaic and evolution needs to take care of it, though I’d be happy to catalyze the process. I thought “militant feminist” was an anti-feminist slur, but I guess there are real self-identified militants. It’s war on women, so violent retribution to end the war is perfectly justified. I am not a pacifist. I hereby declare myself a militant radical feminist. I think every time another woman is beaten, raped, tortured, killed, humiliated, we should take another man. This isn’t eye for an eye so much as effective war tactics.”

    Absolutely, K.A. That is an oath I am willing to take.

    Posted by kiuku | February 8, 2008, 2:15 am
  27. Have any of you “militant radical feminists” read The Demon Lover by Robin Morgan? It seems to me, male madness has engulfed you to the point you actually believe women can beat men at their own game. Violence has never solved anything, and it never will.

    Posted by Aletha | February 8, 2008, 7:40 am
  28. There are all sorts of nonviolent resistence, that are often preferable, in the way they spare lives. Violence for freedom is always justified. I think formal war needs to be declared on men, the Patriarchy.

    Posted by kiuku | February 8, 2008, 11:57 am
  29. Well, I’m with Aletha. Violence has never solved anything, and it never will. It’s a hair of the dog that bit you and in the end doesn’t accomplish revolution or freedom. All it does is inaugurate a new violence-based regime, and in the end nothing changes.

    I am completely, totally, and always opposed to violence. I don’t even agree that self-defense is the answer. I have been physically beaten many times, I’ve also been accosted in the street and have walked in on an armed robbery. I never fought back. I never physically defended myself. It’s not in me to do it, and I never would or will do it. Nonviolent resistance is a very fine response to violence, many times, as those of us who have practiced it know.

    Posted by womensspace | February 8, 2008, 2:26 pm
  30. I don’t see it as a violence / non-violence issue but simply as an inaccurate assessment of effectiveness.

    The strategy would be ineffective because, once it is stated as such, and began to be implemented as such, males would simply exterminate females, – – which is what they want to do anyway, whether or not females adopt any sort of strategy.

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | February 8, 2008, 4:50 pm
  31. Women will not be exterminated if they take seriously the male threat to their lives. Women have yet on a nationwide scale really take this seriously themselves. Witness the fact that very few women do background checks on men they are dating or marrying. We have all this evidense that abuse, battering and violence takes place in the home, and yet again and again women somehow trust men in their very homes.

    I just shake my head as the headlines tell these awful stories again and again. Women are very powerful, and they really could be much more concerned about domestic terrorism– this should be a national outrage among women.

    But again, I rarely if ever hear women in normal social situations ever bring any of this stuff up.

    Posted by Satsuma | February 8, 2008, 6:16 pm
  32. Funny here how we got to a discussion of everyday type situations, which is what I (and Satsuma I think) were talking about, to an entire revolution. An everyday situation – a man was angering me with his sexist garbage and suddenly, forgetting everything, I just jumped up and TOWERED over him ( this in fact threatened violence). My reaction was not planned, it just spontaneously happened. He shrank back, intimidated, and shut up. He wasn’t a tiny guy either. So, it worked right then and there. But it’s a gigantic leap from that to a full fledged blood in the streets revolution, which I would *not* want to see happen. It’s the little things, like the situation above, which add up over the years to finally determine whether or not women habitually feel psychologically secure, comfortable and equal in the world to men or whether they feel intimidated, tiny and insignificant and whether or not men habitually feel advantaged over women. I was amazed to see a discussion of the effects of this apparently conflated with and expanded into a call for women to formally declare war on men!

    Anyway, Mary Sunshine, men have been exterminating large numbers of women for ages – the witchburnings, “everyday” rape, battery and murder, erasure of our work and history. I don’t think they will ever undertake to eliminate us completely until they no longer need us to reproduce their kind. If that ever happens, though, I don’t think they will hesitate.

    Posted by Branjor | February 8, 2008, 9:54 pm
  33. I don’t think they will ever undertake to eliminate us completely until they no longer need us to reproduce their kind. If that ever happens, though, I don’t think they will hesitate.

    Exactly.

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | February 8, 2008, 10:23 pm
  34. Now mother is pimp and daughter is whore:

    “Using a prostitution metaphor for the daughter of a presidential candidate is a surefire way for a journalist to get into trouble.

    On MSNBC yesterday, correspondent David Shuster went there, amazingly enough, while interviewing two guests about Chelsea Clinton’s role in her mother’s campaign. “Doesn’t it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” he asked.”

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/08/msnbcs_shuster_to_offer_onair_1.html

    It does not stop.

    Posted by ekittyglendower | February 8, 2008, 11:32 pm
  35. Yes, once men don’t need women to reproduce the species, they will kill or enslave women.

    I suppose there will be some weak liberal men out there who will want to save a few women, but again, this will only be for their sexual selves, not because they believe women are human beings.

    Women should be very nervous about reproductive technology now. Either that, or we should gain control over it, and figure out a way to get rid of men before they get rid of us.

    Should women declare war on men? Yes, they should consider this, because men are already fighting a 5000 year war against us all the time. Women have a hard time seeing this. They want to believe that men are good, and they will overlook all the evidense to the contrary.

    Either that, or men just brag when women aren’t present. When they go home to their nuclear families, perhaps women just secretly rule the roost, and men pretend to be big shots at work when their wives aren’t around to see them in action.

    Go to any office — note the few overly male pigs there, and then see their wives come in every now and then. I don’t think the wives know how their husbands act at work. SS leader Himmler being a good example.

    So men could be putting on big acts at home, and then doing all the damage when they leave home?

    As for Branjor’s story of standing up for herself, height and strength does matter. Japanese men, who were on average a lot shorter than I was and a lot more slightly built didn’t mess with me on trains. I was pretty brutal pretty fast. Drunk men on trains I would simply boot off at the next train stop. When you’re bigger and taller, well the tides turn.

    Let’s say women had the right to shoot without any cause whatsoever, 20 men in their lifetime. 20. Women were allowed to carry loaded guns, and men were banned from owning any guns at all. If you didn’t feel like killing men, you can give another woman say 15 of your lifetime kill allowance.
    What would men do then? This sounds like a great plot for a movie! I must admit, I wish women would get stronger and more aggressive against these monsters out there. But hey, we’re all into peace, love and happiness🙂 What’s a manhating radical to do these days?🙂

    Posted by Satsuma | February 8, 2008, 11:47 pm
  36. ***As for Branjor’s story of standing up for herself, height and strength does matter.***

    Yes, it really does. In this case, though, the guy was actually a little taller than me and stronger, but he was sitting down at the time, so I was able to tower. In any pure test of strength, he would have prevailed. But I just reacted spontaneously, forgot my conditioning, forgot to be scared, just, without planning to, suddenly shed ALL my baggage and the psychological advantage was MINE. That’s why I was able to prevail in that instant.

    Posted by Branjor | February 9, 2008, 12:48 am
  37. Yes, there are images of Obama as a terrorist and as Osama, as you point out, but there are also many of him as an ape, chimp, monkey, and so on. Think Scopes trial. Think the same old rationale for slavery going back over four hundred years (“not even human”).

    Nothing has really changed. Not sexism and not racism either.

    What really crystalized this for me was the “Stop Porn Culture” conference in Austin two weeks ago. One of the articles we worked with was Gail Dines’ “King Kong and the White Woman” (there’s a review at ttp://nopornnorthampton.org/2006/10/11/a-review-of-gail-dines-king-kong-and-the-white-woman-hustler-magazine-and-the-demonization-of-black-masculinity.aspx, but this review really does not do the article justice, since there is SO much amazing material in the article that isn’t even mentioned in the review). Anyway, it’s about how in the fastest growing area of pornography, “interracial” (which means blonde white women and black men having sex, mostly for the entertainment of white men), widespread cultural hatred for both is necessary for the turn-on to work. If it weren’t for the way white women’s sexuality and black men’s sexuality were already culturally coded by white men, there would be no point to the many strange and unique things going on in these films (strange and unique compared to other pornography, I mean).

    I can’t think of any other way to say it than to say that that article positively blew my mind! I had read lots of feminist theory and lots about race over the years, but this material, where the two meet in a genre like pornography which, as Gail Dines says, never has to bother with being subtle or worrying who might be offended, is the ultimate in racist and sexist synergy. The article showed me in new ways just how racism and sexism are completely intertwined – and both are, unfortunately, alive and well.

    Posted by ceejay1968 | February 9, 2008, 6:17 am
  38. Anyway, it’s about how in the fastest growing area of pornography, “interracial” (which means blonde white women and black men having sex, mostly for the entertainment of white men), widespread cultural hatred for both is necessary for the turn-on to work

    Yes. So yes.

    It’s not new though. It’s as old old old as the hills. Laws were passed forbidding this love, and the last of those laws was not repealed until the late 1990s. There has always, in the racist United States, been pornography made of love between black men and white women. Black men have been lynched for it, even if they never loved or touched a white woman. White women have been beaten, raped and murdered for having loved black men.

    It’s a story I know so well. Few know it. Few want to hear of it. To speak of it is to be punished– by all races of people.

    Hugs to you, ceejay.

    Posted by womensspace | February 9, 2008, 6:23 am
  39. The comment referred to above, in which a reporter talked about the Clintons and their appearing to “pimp” out Chelsea Clinton on the campaign trail, apparently happened during Olbermann’s show, “Countdown.” I didn’t see it, but I did see how Olbermann handled it tonight. He apologized at length, to all three Clintons, on behalf of himself, everyone at his show, everyone at the network, regardless, he said, of political affiliation. Also, the reporter, David Shuster, has been suspeded and has apologized. I’m not excusing it, just wanted to make sure you all knew the latest.

    Posted by ceejay1968 | February 9, 2008, 6:33 am
  40. I agree with Satsuma that men are gearing to exterminate women eventually. Technologically women do not need men, but unless men want to subsist by cloning, they need women. It’s actually men’s perception of being male and not female that makes them hate themselves and all women. Regardless they are exterminating, and will exterminate women, whether or not we go to war with them. Personally I would rather be exterminated than live in oppression.

    Posted by kiuku | February 9, 2008, 7:02 am
  41. Women have a hard time seeing this.

    Amen. Ahh…men. I understand what you’re saying Heart et al about violence, and I understand what Gandhi said about passive resistance. But that’s what women have been doing forever. It doesn’t work. Alternate means of social change take generations. That does nothing for women being killed, battered, humiliated, raped NOW. Where are all the exponential children upon children upon children of women who never made it because she was killed by men’s war? It adds up to a whole nation, a whole continent of absent people. A whole race of people–underprivileged subordinated women and their would-be descendents–has been wiped out. I want people to start framing it this way.

    Violence isn’t inherently evil. This is the Pacifist’s Fallacy. Unprovoked violence is evil, self-defense is logical. If it’s not in you to do it, I mean, going against your personality and nature is always up to you, and I wouldn’t expect you to do something that feels unnatural to you. It doesn’t feel unnatural to me, but I’ve been conditioned to allow men to do it and inhibit my own ability to make change for the better by reacting to men in what would be the most effective response. But I think most women aren’t non-violent responders due to some higher consciousness and pro-active, purposeful movement. It’s because they don’t frame what happens to woman as war. If we reframed it as femicide, an ever-present genocide, a gynocide, a war of oppressors against the oppressed, maybe more women would kill their abusive husbands and go to jail for it (another case of that was just in the news) until society had to pay attention to the new insight women as a class have toward responding to male hate crimes.

    The blood-in-the-street imagery is kind of silly, because that’s not the kind of war we’re talking about. It’s a one-on-one, one war criminal for every woman, master-dog pairing, and that’s the shape the war would take. It’s not formal war, and gearing up to participate more effectively would not look formal either. I’m looking for a new consciousness. I want all women to be willing to kill men when they have to until courts stop punishing self-defense killings. If a man starts sexually abusing you on the street, don’t just run away–crack his fucking skull open. I don’t care how crass it sounds, but that’s the new consciousness that will end this.

    Posted by K.A. | February 9, 2008, 8:47 pm
  42. the revolting unilever ad lauredhel blogged about at hoyden about town also belongs in this group . . . though it’s not aimed at hurting hillary’s campaign, it’s using misogynist perceptions of her to sell crap. disgusting.

    check it out, if you can stand to see more of this foulness:

    http://viv.id.au/blog/?p=1436

    Posted by ladoctorita | February 13, 2008, 3:39 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog Stats

  • 2,563,060 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

The Farm at Huge Creek, Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, The Feminist Hullaballoo

206672_10150156355071024_736021023_6757674_7143952_n

59143_424598116023_736021023_5026689_8235073_n

Afia Walking Tree

More Photos